In it, the Heritage Foundation proposal states, and I quote "The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by the employer as taxable income to the employee." (My italics added).

Now, to me, that sounds like the Individual Mandate that is in the President's program, and the Supreme Court said it was a tax in it's ruling.

Couple that with the fact that Romney authored a similar health care initiative in Massachusetts.

And now, in both cases, Romney and the GOP are against the very thing that they at one time proposed.

Is this a change in conservative philosophy since 1989, or is this, as I fear, simply a case of "If Obama is for it, we're against it"? And further, how can Romney be taken seriously on this issue when he's arguing against the very plan he enacted in his home state?

Whatever the Heritage Institute may have said, or Romney may have done, in the past, doesn't count. Because that was then. This is now. The GOP and supporters will say anything to discredit Obama's health care act. It doesn't even have to be true.

It now seems they have more $$$ than Obama to play with, so you know where this is going: play the same message over and over again until something sinks in. This was tried, to some short term success, in Germany, way back when. And it's the same mentality, as far as I'm concerned.

Is this a change in conservative philosophy since 1989, or is this, as I fear, simply a case of "If Obama is for it, we're against it"? And further, how can Romney be taken seriously on this issue when he's arguing against the very plan he enacted in his home state?

Remember that they're selling to the GOP and some independent voters one mantra and one mantra only: Obama as a one term president. So even if Obama came in favor of tax cuts, restrict abortion, declare that English be the national (and only) language, Christianity be the official religion, export all immigrants, etc., the GOP would still be against him simply because he's:
1. A Democrat
2. A black president (oh yes, don't think that people don't resent having a black president)
3. A person with a not so American name and diverse background (see birthers).

This is why I'm loving this campaign season so far: Mitt Romney is against the very thing he enacted as governor and that his party tried to enact once in the past. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that IF Romney wins the GOP repeals Obamacare and replaces it with the same thing but under a different name. Romney (and the GOP as well) has more flipflops than a house of pancakes.

One argument I've heard occasionally is that Romney's plan was for a state, and Obama's is for the country. Note also that another, more vociferous argument made by the right to Obama's plan is that it violates individual rights. Personally I don't hold much stock in the first argument by dint of the second, because if in fact rights are rights, then it shouldn't matter who's infringing upon those rights.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):2. A black president (oh yes, don't think that people don't resent having a black president)
3. A person with a not so American name and diverse background (see birthers).

I think people underrate, not overrate, those two points. I really do. The nation's demographics are changing rapidly. White births are no longer above 50% in the U.S.; by 2040, the white population will make up less than 50% of the population. And that scares a lot of conservative whites. I think in their mind, an Obama-a black man with a non-traditional name, was something that they were thinking would happen 30 or 40 years from now, not in 2008.

And the fact that when you tell some conservatives that, they get madder than hell, tells me you hit a nerve when you bring it up.

It's not an issue with all conservatives, but with a majority of them.

Oh, I am white, and that future doesn't bother me. I know why it bothers them, but I don't get it.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 4):Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
2. A black president (oh yes, don't think that people don't resent having a black president)
3. A person with a not so American name and diverse background (see birthers).

I think people underrate, not overrate, those two points. I really do.

It's also overrused obnoxiously in inappropriate circumstances where no one is racist... very annoying. Not saying there aren't racists but it pisses me off when someone will just slip that into any conversation automatically... get a logical argument

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):It's also overrused obnoxiously in inappropriate circumstances where no one is racist... very annoying. Not saying there aren't racists but it pisses me off when someone will just slip that into any conversation automatically... get a logical argument

Racism is illogical to begin with, and sometimes logic doesn't suffice. In this case, when talking about many conservatives, it is quite literally a true statement?

Remember all the racists signs that showed up at Tea Bagger rallies back in '08? How about all the alleged "foot in mouth" statements since the President took office, where conservative officeholders have invoked racists words and images?

That's a sure sign that it's a problem in the GOP.

But back to the point. How can anyone take Romney and the GOP seriously when they're bucking positions that they've held for so long, simply because the other guy used it successfully? We learned in '04, with the Kerry campaign, that you can't win simply by saying "anyone but -----". You have to be FOR something.

Doesn't bother me personally but it's along the lines of me talking about the President and slipping in that he's a "socialist..." people stop taking me seriously and it just detracts from the conversation

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 8):It's pretty harmful but against some things those people have called the President.

All Tea Party members? That's generalization. Plus, does that mean we should resort to name calling because they do?

But that's what happens when name calling goes around. Happens with the other side too.

But anyway, on topic, I wouldn't even mind so much if the GOP's positions radically changed as long as they had a viable plan to go along with the repeal. We will see if the public buys all that in November...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 9):
But anyway, on topic, I wouldn't even mind so much if the GOP's positions radically changed as long as they had a viable plan to go along with the repeal. We will see if the public buys all that in November...

I was watching Jon Stewart the night of the USSC decision, and Romney pretty much said he was for most everything in the plan the president has. That's why I don't understand his problem with it.

But if he does have something different, he should spell it out, and do it now. Because, right now, his campaign is fumbling and bumbling this one, and it's hurting his image. Bring out a plan of your own, Mitt, let the American people decide.

If he doesn't, the public won't just buy it on faith that he has a solution.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 10):I was watching Jon Stewart the night of the USSC decision, and Romney pretty much said he was for most everything in the plan the president has. That's why I don't understand his problem with it.

Actually I think I saw an article where most citizens agreed with the ACA... the notable exception (and where I think Romney disagrees mostly with nowadays) is the individual mandate. It's a tough decision, I try and stay in the center and I value personal liberty in most cases, so should we force people to buy this insurance? I don't like forcing anything really.

Kinda off topic, but I think most people would agree with a tax/mandatory fee/whatever you want to call it that EVERYONE needs to buy that covers life threatening injuries/life and limb kinda cases... basically how the ER works now where anyone can go in, insurance or not. That way you don't have people dying in the streets or going bankrupt over an illness yet it allows freedom to purchase insurance or not for routine visits and all. Might be some kinks, but that sounds like a good compromise and more constitutional for the people that are questioning the individual mandate (despite the SCOTUS ruling on it)

It seems to me that Romney is adjusting his opinion to get the votes and money from the most vocal fiscal conservative and 'tea party' voters. Many may not understand a 'mandate' or 'penalty' but they sure don't want to pay more and indeed want less taxes. SCOTUS C.J. Roberts declared the penalty a 'tax', something Congress can vote for and now vote against, Republicans hate any new/expanded taxes at the core beliefs and something that Romney can call a tax that Obama created and rise to pay for the program.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):It seems to me that Romney is adjusting his opinion to get the votes and money from the most vocal fiscal conservative and 'tea party' voters.

Maybe I'm being faceus, but maybe Romney was being more right-leaning during the primaries and now that he is the nominee, he can afford to be more moderate. Who was it on this board that said it when Romney got the nomination...? "And thus begins the journey to the center..." Something about becoming more moderate... may be true

I agree that Romney changes his posture to fit the mood at the time. I really cannot stand him. Problem is I hate Holder and others Obama nominated more. So he will get my vote even though I cant stand him. As far as the heath care plan Obama made a few mistakes he tried to ram 3000 pages of it down our throats when no one even read it. Mistake number one. I will admit a few things of it are popular. Maybe they can keep the popular things and modify it. If Romney gets in he will have to do that. Since he did that in Mass anyway I think he would be open to it. Sorry but Obama does not get my vote as long as he keeps Holder and Napolitano on board. I think he knows at least Holder is a drain on his campaign and he kept him so be it.

Yes, even if it bankrupts the country. They didn't seem to mind when Reagan raised taxes something like 11 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
Maybe I'm being faceus, but maybe Romney was being more right-leaning during the primaries and now that he is the nominee, he can afford to be more moderate.

He's in a bind on this, and on many issues. The far-right base of the GOP isn't thrilled with his upcoming nomination, even though he has pandered way to the right. If he goes back to the center, he'll alienate them, and also be accused of flip-flopping once again on the issue.

He's almost in a no-win situation on this issue, and many others, because he's painted himself into a right-wing corner.

Which I think will happen in Obama's second term, and it's what the GOP should be pushing, instead of the insanity and outright confusion that would be caused by just repealing the whole thing. Romney's plan was similar, so he can't hate it that much.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 15):Which I think will happen in Obama's second term, and it's what the GOP should be pushing, instead of the insanity and outright confusion that would be caused by just repealing the whole thing. Romney's plan was similar, so he can't hate it that much.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):It's also overrused obnoxiously in inappropriate circumstances where no one is racist...

Why, then, did no one, NOT ONE PERSON, bat an eye when McCain was nominated for president? Old white man born in Panama with a Western name? If it does not bother anyone, then no one should be bothered by a half-black (that means half-white) man born in the United States to an American mother. Add to that, the fact that he had boot straps to pull himself up by and became a Constitutional scholar. Travesty!!

Back on topic: I have been trying to figure out why the right hates Romneycare so much. They were for it before they were against. But, like Mitch McConnell proudly declared: They want to make him a one-term president. That is their only goal. They don't want jobs or lower the deficit or keep terrorists out. They just want the black guy with the foreign name out of the White House.

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 14):As far as the heath care plan Obama made a few mistakes he tried to ram 3000 pages of it down our throats when no one even read it.

It shouldn't be surprising, or even especially worrisome, that a bill addressing a hydra-headed issue such as health care is long. And the process of passage took months, with many amendments to please various people (remember Bart Stupak?)

Any dirt on Romney or the Heritage Foundation's record is of no consequence today, unfortunately. Even if we could definitively prove that Willard performed an abortion on the fetus of Jesus Christ himself, rank and file conservatives have been programmed for three years that Obama must be a one term President and as such must be granted as few victories as humanly possible at any cost.

Trust that these people believe every problem we have as a nation is Obama's fault. As far as they are concerned, the world started 3.5 years ago and no events occurred prior to that; even the mention that any events occurred before 1/20/2009 is met with a defense that eludes to some sort of undignified blasphemy.

As of now, we have a CEO backed by billions in the private sector's first attempt at a hostile takeover of Washington vs. the guy they have sabotaged as often as possible. If we embark on yet another Presidency so terrible that the right wing needs to establish complex mental blocks in order to maintain their allegiance, we are screwed.

Obama is not perfect by any means but a failed governor whose cronies consist of big business' most elite is the type of person the founding fathers railed against running this nation. Big business have enough purchasing power in Washington and it needs to be scaled back, not ramped up.

If Romney is elected, we'd be lucky he left us like he left MA, with a 65% disapproval rating and a lot of pissed off and broke citizens; if we are unlucky we usher in a new age of Inverse Fascism (where corporations control the government) with caste system tendencies.

Fantastic post. The only comforting thing is that even with all this corporate money rolling in, Romney's chances of winning are still very slim. There is only a handful of battleground states. Romney would have to win all of them to be elected, and he's not going to win them all. The President has a better ground game than Romney, despite the latter's corporate millions.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):It's a tough decision, I try and stay in the center and I value personal liberty in most cases, so should we force people to buy this insurance?

The funny thing to me in this whole debate is that it's a total flip-flop on the idea of taking personal responsibility. Normally, conservatives very strongly embrace people taking responsibility for their lives. In this case, Obamacare requires people to be responsible and get health insurance. However, conservatives seem to abhor this and rather have us stay with the current system where tens of millions of people freeload by using ER services and never paying for them. Guess who then gets the bill?

So in reality, the current system is a total welfare system that encourages people to freeload and not be responsible. This is why back in the late 80's conservative places like Heritage Foundation embraced the idea of the mandate.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 20):
Romney's chances of winning are still very slim.

Unfortunately, i think that his chances are much better than "slim"

I disagree. If you look at any electoral map right now, there's very few states in play: Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, NC and Colorado.

Romney would have to win all of them, and the chances of that happening aren't good. In Ohio, you have a very unpopular Governor who has lit a fire under liberals; in Wisconsin, even though Walker won his recall, most of those people said they would vote for Obama; Romney's opposition to the auto bailout is going to cost him Michigan.

So he's got problems. Obama is going to pound him in Michigan on the auto bailout, which probably saved thousands of Michigan jobs; Obama is going to tie him to John Kasich in Ohio, and Walker in Wisconsin. Virginia is in play, but is turning into a Blue state with each passing year. He's even struggling in North Carolina, even as that state passed an anti-gay marriage amendment.

He can win Ohio and Florida, and still not win the election.

Unless the economy collapses, and that's not likely to happen, as most indicators are still slowly improving, he's going to be hard-pressed to win all the toss-ups.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 22):So in reality, the current system is a total welfare system that encourages people to freeload and not be responsible. This is why back in the late 80's conservative places like Heritage Foundation embraced the idea of the mandate.

So, the real reason, in the end, they're against it, is because the black guy with the funny name got it passed? I guess that answers my original question.

The Republicans haven't learned the lesson from '04: you can't win simply by being against someone.

25 DocLightning
: Because otherwise the whole system doesn't work. It's absolutely required or the system cannot work. If you can literally buy health insurance on the

26 ER757
: Exactly! Going back to the old status quo isn't going to cut it. Tell us how you are going to fix the stuff in the current plan that's bad, save the

27 FlyPNS1
: Given the current economy, they might be able to pull it off this time. Granted, they'll quickly implode once in office.

28 wingman
: Again the utter hypocrisy, stupidity, and outright control of our electoral process by the mdeia and corporate money is simply laughable. The United S

29 cat3dual
: While I certainly agree with your assessment of the situation, know that we aren't all stupid. Avoid gross generalizations and perhaps your message w

30 TecumsehSherman
: Come the fall, the question will be boiled down to this: do you want to take a chance on Romney, and bring back basically the same policies that near

31 DeltaMD90
: I didn't say there weren't racists, I just said the race thing is way overused. If we're talking about birthers then yeah, racism definitely comes in

32 TecumsehSherman
: In many cases, yes. But how can one reconcile the fact that the GOP, as almost a whole, is now vehemently against policies that THEY THEMSELVES have

33 DeltaMD90
: I don't know, neither do you. It's not automatic racism. Again, there are racists, but I see the race card being pulled out wayyyy too much. How come